Christian shirts with crosses.?

[Guest mirancs8]

I grew up in the Apostolic faith and boy we take the symbol of the cross to a new level. We use it everywhere we won't leave home without it on and we assume those who don't wear it are not Christians. Sad but very true.

BUT I have never been a fan of wearing a cross nor having one hanging in my house. I do have 2 etched stone crosses that are from my mother country, but those have more to do with our history and culture rather than Christ to be honest. I have a gold cross my parent brought over when they came to the US some 40+ years ago and the cross is at least 70 years old. I never wear it... never really did. I would only wear it to please my parents/family.

Even before I knew what a Mormon was I never understood why people were so obsessed with crosses. To me it always represented such a horrible event and I preferred to celebrate his life. But that's just how I've always been. Even when someone passes in my life though I will feel sadness I find celebrating their life to be comforting.

[Mike Reed]

I find the fact that the facebook group you linked only has one member: Lds Cross, who has done nothing but self-promotion, interesting. Are you Lds Cross and the group's creator? EDIT: I just reviewed your history of posting on this board, and you have only ever self-promoted your own work. I can't help but feel this is another attempt to do so.

Nice theory. Here is an idea: Maybe... just MAYBE.... I showed up here in this thread for the very same reason I show up in most threads posted in cyberspace: because I like to discuss the topic of Mormons and the cross. Gasp! Now you can move on to criticizing me for being a one-trick pony, an ark-steadier, yadda yadda yadda...

You yourself proudly proclaim in your blog that you have lost your faith in the Church.

Proudly? Nope. Just thought people should know, since I used to be an apologist.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

If stylization is required to make them acceptable, having them made of translucent plastic for a Jell-O-like effect might do the trick.:)

There is an idea!! Lol!

[Matthew0059]

Nice theory. Here is an idea: Maybe... just MAYBE.... I showed up here in this thread for the very same reason I show up in most threads posted in cyberspace: because I like to discuss the topic of Mormons and the cross. Gasp! Now you can move on to criticizing me for being a one-trick pony, an ark-steadier, yadda yadda yadda...

Would you be so kind as to confirm/deny if you are indeed Lds Cross on Facebook? On further reflection, I don't blame you for only discussing topics you've already done research on (and consequently linking said research)- since you're building your academic reputation around such works, and it's easier to enter a discussion when you've already done research on the topic, it seems fine and natural. I apologize for the caustic tone of that accusation.

My main problem regarding this thread is that there's only one real logical conclusion: that this facebook group is yours, partially because it only has one member, was created only hours before you linked it, and you link the facebook group then link the logo (ostensibly the only reason for linking the facebook group in the first place).

The fact that you didn't mention if you created it or not, and then dodged the question when asked, sends up a red flag.

Proudly? Nope. Just thought people should know, since I used to be an apologist.

If titling your blog "Cultural Mormon Cafeteria" and explaining that a cultural Mormon is "A long-time member... who has lost his/her faith" in a prominent box near the top of the page isn't 'proudly', I fail to see how not. You've chosen the most identifiable feature- the title- to actively portray your status of non-believer.

Perhaps you have another explanation though, and I'm reading too much into it?

Edited July 26, 2010 by Matthew0059
Attempted to clarify. Having difficulties with the English language today.

[Mike Reed]

Would you be so kind as to confirm/deny if you are indeed Lds Cross on Facebook?... The fact that you didn't mention if you created it or not, and then dodged the question when asked, sends up a red flag.

I am sure that, no matter how I answered your question, you'd find red flags. Hypothetically, if I were to tell you "No, it isn't my page. My friend owns it," you'd not be satisfied until I revealed the owner's name. Obviously, LDScross wants to be anonymous... otherwise, they'd use their real name. So no. I won't answer your question. I am satisfied with allowing you to wallow in your own ignorance over the matter.

Besides, it shouldn't matter.

If titling your blog "Cultural Mormon Cafeteria" and explaining that a cultural Mormon is "A long-time member... who has lost his/her faith" in a prominent box near the top of the page isn't 'proudly', I fail to see how not.

I am sure there are a lot of things you fail to see. I won't bother trying to explain things to you. Call it a dodge, if you will. I don't care.

Perhaps you have another explanation though, and I'm reading too much into it?

Perhaps I do.

I will tell you this: there are a couple pages associated with the concept. What I initially linked to in this thread merely was the most recent development. So no. The page wasn't created to respond to this thread, as you speculate. LOL! What a waste of time that would have been!

Edited July 26, 2010 by Mike Reed

[Guest Alana]

Christian skateboards and christian rock concerts? (I was watching King of the Hill and they had an episode about it. Its cool to be christian people! Jesus approves skateboarding and satan sucks)

Love that episode. Well, I love most King of the Hill episodes.

[Matthew0059]

I am sure that, no matter how I answered your question, you'd find red flags.

If you would be upfront and spared me the rudeness, I would be satisfied with whatever answer you chose to give.

Hypothetically, if I were to tell you "No, it isn't my page. My friend owns it," you'd not be satisfied until I revealed the owner's name.

I'd be perfectly satisfied, actually. You seem to think I'm on a witch hunt for the creator. I'm not- I was after that one fact, namely: are you Lds Cross? Since you prefer dancing around the truth and insults to dealing in honesty, I'm content to let that matter go. Ultimately, it is not as important as another question that I had- a question you have answered by your actions.

I see that Lds Cross no longer allows strangers to see his "Likes"- now no member who researches him will see that he has a preference for the movie "Latter Days" and is, consequently, not someone who is right before the LORD.

Obviously, LDScross wants to be anonymous... otherwise, they'd use their real name. So no. I won't answer your question. I am satisfied with allowing you to wallow in your own ignorance over the matter.

I have rarely seen an honest inquiry met with such rudeness. I have apologized for the caustic nature of my first post- I had hoped that would be enough to ease the pain I initially caused. I am sorry that it has not.

I am sure there are a lot of things you fail to see. I won't bother trying to explain things to you. Call it a dodge, if you will. I don't care.

I agree, there are many things I fail to see. Yet I have never run across an honest man without an agenda who didn't take 10 seconds to explain something I did not understand when I asked.

So no. The page wasn't created to respond to this thread, as you speculate. LOL! What a waste of time that would have been!

I never thought that. What I actually thought was that you (or someone you know) created the group and you went looking for ways to advertise it- and a thread concerning the cross was the perfect place to advertise on this forum. The topic of this thread was a lucky break for you.

What caught my eye initially was the gratuitous link to the facebook group. After having seen your reaction to direct questioning, I am reassured that my initial assessment- that you are a wolf among sheep- is correct.

I will not enjoy seeing you fail in your designs, Mike- but I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Dr T]

I like them and would wear them :)

[Mike Reed]

I have apologized for the caustic nature of my first post-

And yet your posts that followed continued in the same "caustic nature".

I had hoped that would be enough to ease the pain I initially caused. I am sorry that it has not.

Right. Sure you are...

...you are a wolf among sheep...

I will not enjoy seeing you fail in your designs, Mike- but I wouldn't have it any other way.

You can talk out of both sides of your mouth, I see.

You seem to think I'm on a witch hunt for the creator.

I wonder why anyone would think that.

I see that Lds Cross no longer allows strangers to see his "Likes"-

Did you happen to SEE that he/she had a new, incomplete profile to begin with. I did. OF COURSE changes would be made to it.

now no member who researches him will see that he has a preference for the movie "Latter Days" and is, consequently, not someone who is right before the LORD.

Here is a question for you. How would you fit into your "research" the fact (yes, FACT) that I have never seen the movie "Latter Days"? Would you conclude that I am lying? Would you conclude that I still am the owner of the page, but initially made a typo that is now corrected/hidden? Would you conclude that my hypothetical friend is the owner of the page, and therefore a "wolf among sheep"? Would you conclude that my hypothetical friend is the owner... and that the friend made a typo? Would you conclude that your computer is demon posessed and misled you? Or that you're dillusional? Or would you conclude nothing, except to simply concede the sad reality that you are clueless? Inquiring minds want to know.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

This thread has derailed long enough. I'll think I'll go rent a movie now--"Latter Days" sounds good--and then get back to my studies. So long!

Edited July 26, 2010 by Mike Reed

[Moksha]

Even though Mike is no longer an apologist (I remember those days) I have seen him stick up for the Church when misinformation was being proffered about it. As far as the topic of LDS people and their relationship with the emblematic Cross, Mike is the expert by virtue of extensive research on the topic. He is into a lot of other LDS history too.

[Hemidakota]

My friend, Jake, stumbled across a rrly cool site with christian T shirts.

Some have crosses, do u think wearing a shirt with a cross is inappropriate.

such as

Blood Donor 2

but i don't want it to seem i'm taking the atonment lightly.

I kinda like this one...

Son Glasses - Junior Tee

note: all hypothetical...i don't buy things unless there at a thrift store...

oh, and this neckalace..

He Loves Me Neckalce

Hmm...then let me ask you this question: "would the Savior wear it?" Would President Monson wear it? Lizzy? Many great artist in the world though...

Edited July 27, 2010 by Hemidakota

[Hemidakota]

Love that episode. Well, I love most King of the Hill episodes.

Talk about "King of the Hill" series, it seems to end with a positive note.

[Mike Reed]

Hmm...then let me ask you this question: "would the Savior wear it?"

Wear T-shirts with crosses on them? Probably not. He probably wouldn't wear a white shirt and tie either. Edited July 27, 2010 by Mike Reed

[mordorbund]

Hmm...then let me ask you this question: "would the Savior wear it?"

Maybe not on the front, but I think I've seen pictures where he's wearing a cross on his back.

And "King of the hill" would be some great text for a Jesus shirt. It could be hill shaped with the three crosses on top and a crown around the middle one.

[Nikkie85]

Honestly I would not wear a cross or hang them in my home. If the savior was killed with a knife or gun would we wear them around our necks? I am so thankful for the atonement but for some reason I tend to see it in the Garden. The cross to me reminds me of torture and death. I like to think of Christ alive and blessing the children.

[mordorbund]

Honestly I would not wear a cross or hang them in my home. If the savior was killed with a knife or gun would we wear them around our necks? I am so thankful for the atonement but for some reason I tend to see it in the Garden. The cross to me reminds me of torture and death. I like to think of Christ alive and blessing the children.

The cross has become the symbol of Christianity for many reasons. Although it was a tortuous mode of capital punishment, the Savior himself encouraged his disciples to carry the shameful burden (Matt 16:24):

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Paul picked up this symbol and made it a central part of his sermons (1 Corinthians 1:17-18):

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

The cross was viewed as foolishness because (as you point out) it was an execution device. Not only was it a symbol of shame by Roman standards, but also Jewish (Deut 21:23).

His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God; ) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

This passage is the reason why the thieves' legs were broken. They needed to die before the night began (the point being that they associated crucifixion with hanging on a tree). The other consequence of this verse is that Jesus was considered cursed by God. Paul's Messiah was accursed. That's the foolishness of the cross. In modern scripture, we say that Christ "descended below all things" to lift us up at the last day. That is how Paul and modern Christians see the cross as the Power of God.

As Latter-day Saints, there are some reasons why we try to distance ourselves from the cross. We know from modern revelation that Gethsemane was an integral part of the Atonement. The Christ was not just suffering in anticipation of the hours ahead. For this reason, the sacred Garden should be remembered and reverenced. But the cross cannot be ignored. In the Garden the Son of God was strengthened by an angel; on the Cross, he was forsaken by his Father.

Because of its place in the Atonement, I think the symbol of the cross should have a place in our culture. To answer your question, if, as part of working out my salvation, Jesus suffered and died from electrocution, bloodletting, impaling, or by being pinned under a semi truck, I would have no objections to a symbol of it displayed in our church buildings (or on a t-shirt - OP).

[prisonchaplain]

Honestly I would not wear a cross or hang them in my home. If the savior was killed with a knife or gun would we wear them around our necks? I am so thankful for the atonement but for some reason I tend to see it in the Garden. The cross to me reminds me of torture and death. I like to think of Christ alive and blessing the children.

I'd never cringe at honoring my Lord through a memorial of that which humanity used to kill him, be it a cross, a stake, a guilluitine, or a shot gun. I appreciate the meaning of the Garden, especially for LDS. However, it is the ugliness and the offensiveness of the cross (yes, we really did kill the Son of God!) that drives home our need for repentence. The Garden says, "Jesus was a great man to love so deeply." The cross says, "We were truly horrible to sin so badly Jesus had to die like that."

[Hemidakota]

It is not about the death or requires the symbol of a cross to the LDS community for keeping the members in remembrance, but what is at the core of the Plan of Salvation or the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the atonement. Not even the garden is as important of overriding the act itself. The act itself is sufficient and only thing we need to be filled with gratitude and anchored to our soul. Listen to what the Prophet Joseph Smith stated what the "CROSS" really meant to the earlier Saints of that era:

Martyrdom is not an essential condition precedent to the attainment of eternal life. Men are judged according to their desires and the intents of their hearts as well as their works. Even though the dispensation of the meridian of time was one of martyrdom and slaughter of the saints, there were many who were able to escape these things. Through obedience to the gospel standards, their guarantee of attaining eternal life is equal to that of those who laid down their lives, because those who escaped the sword would have submitted to it rather than deny or forsake the gospel cause. In this latter-day dispensation relatively few have been called upon to lay down their lives in the gospel cause, but all saints are expected to be willing to do so if the necessity is laid upon them. (DNTC 1:394)

Daniel Ludlow research out the term “CROSS” many years ago and wrote explanatory answer for this usage:

16:24 The term take up your cross is found in both ancient and modern scripture, including at least three references in the Doctrine and Covenants (23:6; 56:2; 112:12). In Matthew 16:24 the Savior says, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." The Inspired Version of the Bible provides the meaning of this term as given by Jesus Christ himself: "And now for a man to take up his cross, is to deny himself all ungodliness, and every worldly lust, and keep my commandments." (Matt. 16:25-26.)

The meaning of this term is also clarified in other scriptures. For example, the Lord in 3 Nephi 12:30 states: "It is better that ye should deny yourself of these things, wherein ye will take up your cross, than that ye should be cast into hell."

Each person has areas of weakness where he or she must strive diligently to overcome that weakness and turn it into a strength. The term "take up your cross" has to do with this strengthening process by denying yourself "all ungodliness" and by keeping the commandments of God. (CSDC, pp. 56-57.)

And now for a man to take up his cross, is to deny himself all ungodliness, and every worldly lust, and keep my commandments. (JST; italics added.)

16:25-26 Break not my commandments for to save your lives; for whosoever will save his life in this world, shall lose it in the world to come.

And whosoever will lose his life in this world, for my sake, shall find it in the world to come.

Therefore, forsake the world, and save your souls; for what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (JST; italics added.)

What value is to be placed on a human soul? How can we determine its worth? Two things will give some indication of the priceless value of the souls of men: (1) What these souls have cost up to this point—the labor, material and struggle that has gone into their creation and development; and (2) The effective use to which they can be put—the benefits that result when souls fill the full measure of their creation and take their rightful place in the eternal scheme of things.

To use these standards of judgment it is necessary to view human souls in their relationship to the eternal plan of creation, progression, and salvation. Souls had their beginning, as conscious identities, when they were born as the spirit offspring of Deity. There then followed an infinitely long period of training, schooling, and preparation, so that these spirits might go on and attain their exaltation. "God himself," as the Prophet Joseph Smith expressed it, "finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself." (Teachings, p. 354.)

As part of this schooling process this earth was created; spirits were given temporal bodies; gospel dispensations were vouchsafed to men; prophets were sent forth to labor and preach; oftentimes they were persecuted, tormented, and slain; and even the Son of God taught and served among mortals, climaxing his ministry by suffering beyond mortal endurance in working out the infinite and eternal atonement. All this is included in the price already paid toward the purchase of human souls.

Such of these souls as keep all the commandments shall attain eternal life. They shall go on to exaltation and glory in all things, becoming like the Father, begetting spirit offspring, creating worlds without number, and forever and endlessly rolling forth the eternal purposes of the Infinite God. (DNTC 1:393.) (Companion to Your Study of the New Testament: The Four Gospels, by Daniel H. Ludlow, p.122-123)

Edited August 2, 2010 by Hemidakota

[Moksha]

The fact that the Cross stands as the near universal symbol of Christianity should be reason enough for Mormons to honor it,

[Nikkie85]

Gordon B. Hinkley said, "And so, because our Savior lives, we do not use the symbol of His death as the symbol of our faith. But what shall we use? No sign, no work of art, no representation of form is adequate to express the glory and the wonder of the Living Christ. He told us what that symbol should be when He said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15). As His followers, we cannot do a mean or shoddy or ungracious thing without tarnishing His image. Nor can we do a good and gracious and generous act without burnishing more brightly the symbol of Him whose name we have taken upon ourselves. And so our lives must become a meaningful expression, the symbol of our declaration of our testimony of the Living Christ, the Eternal Son of the Living God.

It is that simple, my brethren and sisters, and that profound and we’d better never forget it." Ensign article The symbol of our Faith

That being said I think it is distasteful to wear crosses and I think the saying "Carry your cross" is more figurative than literal. Just my opinion.

[CrimsonKairos]

As Latter-day Saints, there are some reasons why we try to distance ourselves from the cross.

I agree. My opinion is that diminishing the cross's presence in the LDS church was meant to set us apart from the other Christian denominations, so people in the 1800s and 1900s wouldn't see a Mormon church with a cross and think, "Oh, that's probably a Protestant or Catholic church."

Do you realize that in all of the 26 volumes of the Journal of Discourses, the word "Gethsemane" appears only twice? See volumes 7 and 23.

Do you further realize that Gethsemane was never mentioned in connection with the concept of atonement until 1883? See: JD Volume 24, page 35, by John Taylor, spoken January 21st, 1883.

If we insist that Gethsemane is an officially recognized element of the sacrifice for sin, we are left to conclude thus:

If Gethsemane is such an integral part of the atonement; and,

If the atonement is the foundation of our religion as per Joseph Smith; then,

The prophets and apostles before 1883--including Joseph Smith who recorded D&C 19--clearly failed to understand what the atoning sacrifice for sin was.

I don't think you or anyone else wants to claim that. Do we?

We know from modern revelation that Gethsemane was an integral part of the Atonement. The Christ was not just suffering in anticipation of the hours ahead.

The scriptures clearly and flatly contradict this myth that has persisted for so long in the LDS church. Let me forestall objections and arguments by saying that D&C 19 either contradicts the 20 or so other scriptures that declare the cross to be the site of the sacrifice for sin, or it doesn't contradict them. If it contradicts them, God has contradicted himself, and we all know that's silly.

Mosiah 15 clearly teaches, along with New Testament and D&C 19, that Gethsemane was about Christ's divine side overcoming the weak desires of his mortal side, and going ahead with his pre-ordained role as the sacrificial lamb on Golgotha.

Again, I cannot emphasize enough how incredibly important the doctrine is in Mosiah 15. Most members are confused by several verses and so skip over it, but it is some of the most powerful doctrine on Gethsemane that I've found.

In the Garden the Son of God was strengthened by an angel; on the Cross, he was forsaken by his Father.

Exactly. Christ offered the atoning sacrifice for sin by himself, and if an angel strengthened him in Gethsemane that can't be part of the atonement for sin, can it? Unless we contradict the LDS canon, it cannot be part of the atoning sacrifice for sin.

As for the cross imagery and LDS doctrinal thought and sensitivities...I think we all need to grow up and let people interact with their Father and Savior in the way that speaks to them. You know the guy who shows up to church in a tie-dye shirt and long beard? Christ died for him too.

Do we, like Pharisees before us, object to him being disrespectful of the chapel because of a mote in his eye? Do we busy ourselves with unrighteously judging others' intents and desires? Apparently, many in the church do and I think many will be surprised on Judgment Day when the book of our thoughts, words and deeds is opened and the page with their entry is titled: "Hypocrite"

Love to you all. :)

Edited August 4, 2010 by CrimsonKairos

[Mike Reed]

Listen to what the Prophet Joseph Smith stated what the "CROSS" really meant to the earlier Saints of that era:

Martyrdom is not an essential condition precedent to the attainment of eternal life. Men are judged according to their desires and the intents of their hearts as well as their works. Even though the dispensation of the meridian of time was one of martyrdom and slaughter of the saints, there were many who were able to escape these things. Through obedience to the gospel standards, their guarantee of attaining eternal life is equal to that of those who laid down their lives, because those who escaped the sword would have submitted to it rather than deny or forsake the gospel cause. In this latter-day dispensation relatively few have been called upon to lay down their lives in the gospel cause, but all saints are expected to be willing to do so if the necessity is laid upon them. (DNTC 1:394)

This quote says nothing of the cross. Nor is this quote even from Joseph Smith. Bruce R. McConkie is the author of DNTC.

Daniel Ludlow research out the term “CROSS” many years ago and wrote explanatory answer for this usage:

16:24 The term take up your cross is found in both ancient and modern scripture, including at least three references in the Doctrine and Covenants (23:6; 56:2; 112:12). In Matthew 16:24 the Savior says, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." The Inspired Version of the Bible provides the meaning of this term as given by Jesus Christ himself: "And now for a man to take up his cross, is to deny himself all ungodliness, and every worldly lust, and keep my commandments." (Matt. 16:25-26.)

The meaning of this term is also clarified in other scriptures. For example, the Lord in 3 Nephi 12:30 states: "It is better that ye should deny yourself of these things, wherein ye will take up your cross, than that ye should be cast into hell."

Each person has areas of weakness where he or she must strive diligently to overcome that weakness and turn it into a strength. The term "take up your cross" has to do with this strengthening process by denying yourself "all ungodliness" and by keeping the commandments of God. (CSDC, pp. 56-57.)

And now for a man to take up his cross, is to deny himself all ungodliness, and every worldly lust, and keep my commandments. (JST; italics added.)

16:25-26 Break not my commandments for to save your lives; for whosoever will save his life in this world, shall lose it in the world to come.

And whosoever will lose his life in this world, for my sake, shall find it in the world to come.

Therefore, forsake the world, and save your souls; for what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (JST; italics added.)

What value is to be placed on a human soul? How can we determine its worth? Two things will give some indication of the priceless value of the souls of men: (1) What these souls have cost up to this point—the labor, material and struggle that has gone into their creation and development; and (2) The effective use to which they can be put—the benefits that result when souls fill the full measure of their creation and take their rightful place in the eternal scheme of things.

To use these standards of judgment it is necessary to view human souls in their relationship to the eternal plan of creation, progression, and salvation. Souls had their beginning, as conscious identities, when they were born as the spirit offspring of Deity. There then followed an infinitely long period of training, schooling, and preparation, so that these spirits might go on and attain their exaltation. "God himself," as the Prophet Joseph Smith expressed it, "finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself." (Teachings, p. 354.)

As part of this schooling process this earth was created; spirits were given temporal bodies; gospel dispensations were vouchsafed to men; prophets were sent forth to labor and preach; oftentimes they were persecuted, tormented, and slain; and even the Son of God taught and served among mortals, climaxing his ministry by suffering beyond mortal endurance in working out the infinite and eternal atonement. All this is included in the price already paid toward the purchase of human souls.

Such of these souls as keep all the commandments shall attain eternal life. They shall go on to exaltation and glory in all things, becoming like the Father, begetting spirit offspring, creating worlds without number, and forever and endlessly rolling forth the eternal purposes of the Infinite God. (DNTC 1:393.) (Companion to Your Study of the New Testament: The Four Gospels, by Daniel H. Ludlow, p.122-123)

What is the point of this lengthy cut and paste? None of these quotes justify rejecting the material/visual symbol of the cross.

[UrbanFool]

I think this response belongs in the Glenn Beck thread where they're discussing faith without works.

... or not.

[Mike Reed]

... I think the saying "Carry your cross" is more figurative than literal. Just my opinion.

Figurative... as in "symbolic"?